Bob Herriot and I worked with Carl on simplifying his proposal so that it
made fewer changes to the June specification. Carl agreed with them before
we sent them out. I should have indicated that the voting proposals were
from Bob, Carl, and I after a number of drafts and phone calls.
The reason to make separate votes, is that the issues are separable and some
may favor one, but not the other. So if they are combined into one
proposal, then we lose the opportunity to make one of them, if there is
objection to the other.
Tom
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl at us.ibm.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 1998 09:16
>To: ipp at pwg.org>Subject: Re: IPP> NLO votes
>>>I agree the issue is confusing but it's not new. The issue has
>been pending
>resolution since May 1998. I believe it was Hugo who pointed
>out, in Savannah,
>that other outstanding prototype issues (such as this) are
>fair game for v1
>closure.
>>I've gotten lost regarding what we are "voting" on. I reviewed
>the archives and
>find an attempt by Carl Kugler to point out confusion and
>complexity related to
>NLO. First note May 29, re-emphasis October 7. Based on a
>subsequent thread,
>Carl issued a proposal (October 9) which I find clear and succinct.
>http://www.egroups.com/list/ipp/4604.html Later, Tom Hastings issued a
>separate, 4 part proposal with two votes embedded or implied.
>I THINK it was
>Tom's desire to replicate Carl's proposal (not modify it) into the
>specifications and he felt it best to look at each part separately.
>>If there is a difference between Carl's proposal, taken as a
>whole, and that
>which we are voting on, I would like to understand what is
>different, and why.
>I do find it easier to review and understand Carl's one part
>write-up than the
>4 part scenario which seems to have interlinked behavior (if
>you vote for this
>you may not need that...).
>>Carl and others, including Keith Moore, have tried to express
>that the NL/NLO
>scheme is unduly complex and prone to error. Carl's proposal
>represents a
>simpler scheme where every text and name attribute would have
>an explicit
>natural language thereby simplifying the implementation with
>fewer attribute
>syntax's, and reducing the number of attributes which have
>multiple syntax's -
>all with NO LOSS of functionality.
Exactly. NLO 4 of 4 proposes exactly that: Drop textWithoutLanguage and
nameWithoutLanguage
and always use textWithLanguage and nameWIthLanguage in requests and
responses. But 4 of 4 (unlike Carl's proposal) does not change the
"attributes-natural-language" Operation attribute in requests and keeps it
in responses as well for compatibility (though its not used).
However, that is a definite change from the June drafts. We should only
agree to such a change if we are all willing to make such a change. The
compromise discussed on the telecon today may be a way forward: senders
SHOULD use textWithLanguage and nameWithLanguage, but continue (as in the
June draff) that receivers MUST accept either textWithLanguage or
textWithoutLanguage and nameWIthLanguage and nameWithoutLanguage. Bob
Herriot will write up the compromise proposal.
Tom
>>Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems
>harryl at us.ibm.com>>>>owner-ipp at pwg.org on 10/27/98 07:18:32 PM
>Please respond to owner-ipp at pwg.org>To: ipp at pwg.org>cc:
>Subject: IPP> NLO votes
>>>Can somebody please state what the proposed changes are. I
>have tried to
>find the orginal proposal somewhere in the mail threads and cannot.
>>I will remind peole that we voted to that ipp1.0 was done
>other then the
>issues we raised at the bake-off. This was not raised then or
>in savanah.
>Functioning interoperable implmentaitons can be built using the current
>spec. What suddenly changed?
>>>